Long Game 59: Shadows and Spikes

[CadCom]

2 minutes ago, Devotary of Spontaneity said:

I'm not sure how you cleared Sart and I, can you explain that further?

Yeah, I think I can. I'm putting my life on the line here, so I'm hoping it's worth it.

So I'm the Seer. N1 I roleblocked Sart. And N2 I roleblocked Devotary. I've also verified that The seer roleblock goes before the lurcher. Therefore. Since the inquisitor was stopped by the lurcher today, my roleblock didn't stop either of them from performing spiking or charging a spike.

I must say this isnt guaranteed. If I was redirected or anything. @Lumgol does coinshot or seer go first in the order of actions or are they simultaneous

Because if I was redirected, then I just revealed this for no reason. 

@Cicada or any other coinshots did you attempt to redirect me last night?

so I've narrowed the inquiziboi down to stick, fura and Shane. If one of the two that we dont lynch tonight is able to roleclaim and prove their claim, we know who the other is. 

[Furamirionind]

With the Seer having claimed, I do think we should all claim now, as the Seer is probably more valuable right now than the Lurcher?

I'm a Smoker, which means I cant prove myself... someone could try to riot/soothe me today, but I know that is too late.

I dont think it can be Shane, and I know it's not me sooo... that's interesting.

Oh, it's also worth noting, since we still only have 1 elim player, that Sart is now mechanically cleared as well as Devotary.

Mechanically cleared players: Drake, Cicada, Rath, Devotary, and Sart.

That leaves: Fura, Stick, CadCom, Shane.

I suppose I really will need to go back and reread LG52, as that's when Shane was last an elim... but I still dont think its him. That leaves CadCom and Stick, and while I have gone back and forth a bit on CadCom, I am sure there is a seer in this game, so if no one CCs CadCom, then regardless of my reads, it has to be Stick?

Sart

[Cicada]

@Cadmium Compounder I have not attempted any redirects, since I didn't want to cause any villager problems. If no one objects, since we've lost our Tineye, I'll likely redirect Tin tonight onto Drake, so that the Inquiziboi won't learn any new roles. Or any other suggestions would be welcome, I'm a very indecisive Coinshot :/

[Lumgol]

54 minutes ago, Cadmium Compounder said:

I must say this isnt guaranteed. If I was redirected or anything. @Lumgol does coinshot or seer go first in the order of actions or are they simultaneous

Seer goes before Coinshot in the OoA. However, if the Seer targets anyone other than the Coinshot, the Coinshot may still redirect the Seer's action.

If the Seer roleblocks the Coinshot, and the Coinshot attempts to redirect the Seer, the Coinshot's attempt will fail.

[Sart]

I can confirm that I was roleblocked Night one. Because of this, we can safely conclude that Cadmium Compounder, Devotary of Spontaneity, and myself are all innocent.So our remaining suspect pool has been reduced to four players. Technically, Cicada hasn't proven their role, but I find it likely that they are telling the truth. So, it's between Fura, Shane, and Stick. Fura has claimed Smoker, which can't be proved until after the lynch. If I was the Inquisitor, it would be the claim I would make. @shanerockes and @_Stick_ what roles are you claiming?

[Devotary of Spontaneity]

1 hour ago, Cadmium Compounder said:

So I'm the Seer. N1 I roleblocked Sart. And N2 I roleblocked Devotary. I've also verified that The seer roleblock goes before the lurcher. Therefore. Since the inquisitor was stopped by the lurcher today, my roleblock didn't stop either of them from performing spiking or charging a spike.

It's nice to know that we have a Seer, unless of course you're the Inquisitor and are hoping there isn't a Seer. That seems a bit too risky for an Inquisitor to do.  @Furamirionind, who have you Smoked? @Sart, what is your actual role? Do you know anything that could narrow down the suspect list? 

[Furamirionind]

2 minutes ago, Devotary of Spontaneity said:

It's nice to know that we have a Seer, unless of course you're the Inquisitor and are hoping there isn't a Seer. That seems a bit too risky for an Inquisitor to do.  @Furamirionind, who have you Smoked? @Sart, what is your actual role? Do you know anything that could narrow down the suspect list? 

I smoked myself D1 and forgot last night, which sounds suspicious, but considering how busy I was, I'd say it is understandable from a villager as well.

[Devotary of Spontaneity]

3 minutes ago, Furamirionind said:

I smoked myself D1 and forgot last night, which sounds suspicious, but considering how busy I was, I'd say it is understandable from a villager as well.

It's generally frowned upon for Smokers to target themselves as it prevents Seekers from targeting them, though that's less relevant in this game where allomancy is inherently village to begin with. If you didn't smoke yourself last night then it should work for Drake to Soothe your vote today, as Smoking is of course a night-only action. Since Drake is confirmed village, it probably isn't necessary for you to be the only vote on someone.

[Furamirionind]

4 minutes ago, Devotary of Spontaneity said:

It's generally frowned upon for Smokers to target themselves as it prevents Seekers from targeting them, though that's less relevant in this game where allomancy is inherently village to begin with. If you didn't smoke yourself last night then it should work for Drake to Soothe your vote today, as Smoking is of course a night-only action. Since Drake is confirmed village, it probably isn't necessary for you to be the only vote on someone.

I don't see how that helps at all. The reason I was smoking myself was so that if I was rioted or Soothed, I could prove what I was... The fact I can be Soothed doesn't help anyone, as everyone can be Soothed.

If it is frowned upon for Smokers to target themselves due to interfering with Seekers, then it must be frowned upon for them to exist at all right? As simply using their ability interferes with Seekers.
It's unfortunate that a Seeker couldn't confirm my claim, but it doesn't make a difference.

Edit:

As there is only one elim right now, if anyone mechanically vouches for anyone else being good, then the person being vouched for isn't the inquisitor. That's how we have so many cleared players.

Edited September 10, 2019 by Furamirionind

[Devotary of Spontaneity]

1 minute ago, Furamirionind said:

I don't see how that helps at all. The reason I was smoking myself was so that if I was rioted or Soothed, I could prove what I was... The fact I can be Soothed doesn't help anyone, as everyone can be Soothed.

If it is frowned upon for Smokers to target themselves due to interfering with Seekers, then it must be frowned upon for them to exist at all right? As simply using their ability interferes with Seekers.
It's unfortunate that a Seeker couldn't confirm my claim, but it doesn't make a difference.

Wow, I really wan't thinking very hard here. If you didn't Smoke last night, you can't prove anything until D4, by which point we'll have super lost if we haven't found the Inquisitor.

 In games where Smokers can be of either alignment and Seekers reveal alignment, an unobstructed scan tends to be better than being able to prove your role to a vote manipulator. Village smokers tend to be used for blocking elim vote manipulation, though there doesn't have to be a reason for them to exist.

[DrakeMarshall]

Huh. The seer claim is interesting. For now, Stick.

2 hours ago, Devotary of Spontaneity said:

It's nice to know that we have a Seer, unless of course you're the Inquisitor and are hoping there isn't a Seer. That seems a bit too risky for an Inquisitor to do.  @Furamirionind, who have you Smoked? @Sart, what is your actual role? Do you know anything that could narrow down the suspect list? 

Are you saying that you were not informed that your action was blocked...?

Or do you not have a night action?

[Devotary of Spontaneity]

48 minutes ago, DrakeMarshmallow said:

Are you saying that you were not informed that your action was blocked...?

Or do you not have a night action?

I did not take a night action C2, so was not informed of being roleblocked. I was really hoping that Sart would have claimed by now, because he is not mechanically cleared, and there are only two non-Inquisitor roles he could possibly be. The Inquisitor kill is not an action, so Sart could not have received a notification that he was roleblocked N1 unless he has an Allomantic role with an active ability. I am very confident that Sart is not a Coinshot or a Smoker, as he would have counterclaimed if those were true. Sart has said that he cannot prove his role, which eliminates Seer, and Tineye somewhat, though I'm still including Tineye as possible. That leaves Lurcher, which would mean that either the Inquisitor attempted to convert someone who was relatively high on the suspect list, or more likely, Sart protected somebody else. 

That leaves: 

1. Furamirionind, as A Character -Smoker?
5. Stick
8. Shanerockes
12. Sart, as Sari -Lurcher?

We know that there is a Lurcher, so I'd say if the Lurcher is someone other than Sart they should probably claim.

Originally, I was fairly sure that Inquisitor!Fura would be too proud to say that the Inquisitor had one extra life for each uncharged spike, but it is possible that the doc simply didn't announce this fact. Claiming to have Smoked D1 when Smoker is a night action is very much not helping.

[CadCom]

8 minutes ago, Devotary of Spontaneity said:

That leaves Lurcher, which would mean that either the Inquisitor attempted to convert someone who was relatively high on the suspect list, or more likely, Sart protected somebody else. 

*italics added

If I were the inquisitor, this is what I would do, as I could then push the lynch toward that person, and it would take a couple cycles prior to them flipping, which would ensure the win for me.

[Sart]

28 minutes ago, Devotary of Spontaneity said:

I did not take a night action C2, so was not informed of being roleblocked. I was really hoping that Sart would have claimed by now, because he is not mechanically cleared, and there are only two non-Inquisitor roles he could possibly be. The Inquisitor kill is not an action, so Sart could not have received a notification that he was roleblocked N1 unless he has an Allomantic role with an active ability. I am very confident that Sart is not a Coinshot or a Smoker, as he would have counterclaimed if those were true. Sart has said that he cannot prove his role, which eliminates Seer, and Tineye somewhat, though I'm still including Tineye as possible. That leaves Lurcher, which would mean that either the Inquisitor attempted to convert someone who was relatively high on the suspect list, or more likely, Sart protected somebody else. 

That leaves: 

1. Furamirionind, as A Character -Smoker?
5. Stick
8. Shanerockes
12. Sart, as Sari -Lurcher?

We know that there is a Lurcher, so I'd say if the Lurcher is someone other than Sart they should probably claim.

Originally, I was fairly sure that Inquisitor!Fura would be too proud to say that the Inquisitor had one extra life for each uncharged spike, but it is possible that the doc simply didn't announce this fact. Claiming to have Smoked D1 when Smoker is a night action is very much not helping.

You're correct in that I'm the Lurcher. I was hoping to prolong that reveal so we didn't have to get into mindgames, but ah well. And you're correct that I protected someone else. The Inquisitor attempted to convert Rathmaskal last night. With the two vote minimum in place, I reasoned that it would be game over if a vote manipulator got converted. I also knew that Drake had gathered too much suspicion from his pillaging of Aman. It would be better if they took someone out of the spotlight, so they decided on Rathmaskal. I'm presuming the Inquisitor is Fura at this point. They had time for two posts Night 2, and yet they didn't have time for an action? And they supposedly smoked Day 1, when Smoking is a Night action this game. All in all, I'm hoping we've got our man.

[Furamirionind]

14 minutes ago, Sart said:

You're correct in that I'm the Lurcher. I was hoping to prolong that reveal so we didn't have to get into mindgames, but ah well. And you're correct that I protected someone else. The Inquisitor attempted to convert Rathmaskal last night. With the two vote minimum in place, I reasoned that it would be game over if a vote manipulator got converted. I also knew that Drake had gathered too much suspicion from his pillaging of Aman. It would be better if they took someone out of the spotlight, so they decided on Rathmaskal. I'm presuming the Inquisitor is Fura at this point. They had time for two posts Night 2, and yet they didn't have time for an action? And they supposedly smoked Day 1, when Smoking is a Night action this game. All in all, I'm hoping we've got our man.

Well either you were the Lurcher, or a Thug. : P
Between the two, you said you were prevented from taking an action.

Hahaha, If I was the Inquisitor, Rath would 100% be my convert this game, so this is great. Lol xD
(Though I would have converted him as I called out his meta, and then his response, I would want to see what he does in a conversion (especially after meta discussion), plus a throwback to 55. If something goes wrong, I could always bus him and convert Devotary.  )

56 minutes ago, Devotary of Spontaneity said:

Originally, I was fairly sure that Inquisitor!Fura would be too proud to say that the Inquisitor had one extra life for each uncharged spike, but it is possible that the doc simply didn't announce this fact. Claiming to have Smoked D1 when Smoker is a night action is very much not helping.

I think Inquisitor!Fura would be too proud, if my opinion counts for anything...  (I know it doesn't : P ) 

Also, about the D1 thing, yeah, I considered editing in a correction to that, but I thought that would cause more fingers to point at me. To quote though:

4 hours ago, Furamirionind said:

I smoked myself D1 and forgot last night, which sounds suspicious, but considering how busy I was, I'd say it is understandable from a villager as well.

Contradiction in bold. You can see, while I said I smoked D1, I also said I didn't use my action last night, so my understanding of the rules is obviously intact, and I feel like a small slip up like this is more likely to come from a villager.

Hey, Drake, want to defend me so that I don't look even more suspicious by spending so much effort defending myself? : P

Oh, and it's unfortunate Stick doesn't seem to have had time to get online so far, but my vote has to go on her for the moment. 
Stick

[shanerockes]

5 hours ago, Sart said:

I can confirm that I was roleblocked Night one. Because of this, we can safely conclude that Cadmium Compounder, Devotary of Spontaneity, and myself are all innocent.So our remaining suspect pool has been reduced to four players. Technically, Cicada hasn't proven their role, but I find it likely that they are telling the truth. So, it's between Fura, Shane, and Stick. Fura has claimed Smoker, which can't be proved until after the lynch. If I was the Inquisitor, it would be the claim I would make. @shanerockes and @_Stick_ what roles are you claiming?

Well since we are role-claiming here, I am a lurcher. I used my action on the night cycle to protect Sart actually. I thought it would they would be targeted by the inquisitor in the nigh cycle because of what happened during the day cycle. 

[Furamirionind]

...

@Lumgol if a lurcher successfully targets someone, will they get a differant response if they protected someone from an attack or conversion?

I genuinely think we have 2 Lurchers, but I still would like the answer to that question.

[Devotary of Spontaneity]

31 minutes ago, shanerockes said:

Well since we are role-claiming here, I am a lurcher. I used my action on the night cycle to protect Sart actually. I thought it would they would be targeted by the inquisitor in the nigh cycle because of what happened during the day cycle. 

Did you protect Sart from conversion, or from an attack? I'm pretty sure a Lurcher can only do one or the other, so if you protected from an attack that confirms Sart's innocence.

[shanerockes]

Just now, Devotary of Spontaneity said:

Did you protect Sart from conversion, or from an attack? I'm pretty sure a Lurcher can only do one or the other, so if you protected from an attack that confirms Sart's innocence.

I protected him from the kill. I didn't think there was going to be a conversion and even if I did, I would have more than likely used it on someone else.

[DrakeMarshall]

2 hours ago, Furamirionind said:

Hey, Drake, want to defend me so that I don't look even more suspicious by spending so much effort defending myself? : P

Yeah, sure. I'm, like, 85% sure you aren't evil.

1.  I'm not hearing any smoker counterclaims. I'm buying at this point that it's role madness, so that is actually fairly significant. (this comes with a caveat though, because if there were going to be a role that doesn't appear in the game, smoker would probably be one of the first picks)
2. You ran calculations at the start of the game about how many mislynches we have (not very many!). Yeah, it could be a bid for trust, but it makes life unnecessarily difficult for the inquisitor, who could have simply kept that information to themselves and used it to great effect.
3. Your reaction to Aman's death. You sounded genuinely miffed. I really don't think you would have reacted like that if I had actually been doing you a favor. Not the mention the fact that you were more vocal about it after Aman's death, which, like I said, suggests you weren't entirely sure of the outcome.

I dunno, I'm apparently better at convincing both myself and others of things that aren't true than I previously thought, but these reasons seem solid enough to me. I'm pretty sure lynching Fura would lose the village the game.

I will be soothing a vote off of you.

1 hour ago, shanerockes said:

Well since we are role-claiming here, I am a lurcher. I used my action on the night cycle to protect Sart actually. I thought it would they would be targeted by the inquisitor in the nigh cycle because of what happened during the day cycle. 

Two lurchers?

Huh.

Well, I guess it makes sense, balance-wise, considering how the eliminator faction has a fairly considerable edge afforded by their extra lives.

Still. Feels odd.

 

EDIT:

PoE is surprisingly effective. So, the only people who aren't straight up cleared are:

1. Furamirionind - I just offered the reasons for why I think Fura isn't evil.
2. Cicada - Coinshot claim is uncontested and seems completely legit.
3. Stick - Prime suspect, in my opinion, as evidenced by my vote. In addition to PoE, I can see some analogues to Stick's current behavior and elim!Stick in some other games I've played. This substantially outweighs my initial trust read.
4. Shanerockes - Also a completely viable suspect, with a duplicate role claim that is unsubstantiated. The main reason I am not going hard on this is because I think the inquisitor would be more active, and because lurcher is a fairly bold roleclaim to make.

Edited September 10, 2019 by DrakeMarshmallow

[Stick.]

Oh dear, I get back from school and there's a MASS CLAIM HAHAH VERY MUCH NOT WHAT I WANTED xD

Well, I am another Tineye: N1 I targeted Aman (which was mostly a random choice) and N2 I targeted Circada, as I thought there was a high chance she might get converted. Both my actions were largely useless. I guess I technically can EXTRA-prove my role next cycle by targeting one of you and then publicly sharing the results. 

All these claims are interesting, particularly the 2 lurchers. But as I said earlier, I'm not going to read too much into that. Also I don't understand why people keep saying Shane wouldnt have NKd Venture so if someone could explain that'd be awesome. I guess that leaves me with Fura. Despite my village read on you, it's more likely that you're the inquisitor than anybody else considering all the claims (except maybe shane). You proved in LG55 that you are very good in appearing helpful to the village as an elim, so all the number crunching D1 is in fact NAI (as I have also previously said), and because I've only played one game with elim!fura, that is unfortunately all I can reference. 

6 hours ago, DrakeMarshmallow said:

and because lurcher is a fairly bold roleclaim to make.

Is it though? For an inquisitor, claiming Lurcher is kind of perfect is it not? Another reason to maybe suspect Shane...hM

[CadCom]

So, we've had just about everyone who I suspect claim. We had a Lurcher, a Smoker, and a tineye. I'm slightly troubled that none of these claimed thug, but I'm also slightly encouraged by that. Going into the night cycle, whoever we choose to lynch, if they survive the lynch, cannot use the claim of Thug at this point, which means we can guarantee that they are the Inquisitor. Now we just have to hope we can actually pin the Inquisitor. Is anyone up for trying to orchestrate a tie between Fura and Stick?

I don't have time to run the numbers for that now, but would it be worth it?

Edit. If none of them claim to be rioter or soother, then we should be able to orchestrate this, as long as no one else decides to try to change it. 

Edited September 10, 2019 by Cadmium Compounder

[Rathmaskal]

1 hour ago, Cadmium Compounder said:

Is anyone up for trying to orchestrate a tie between Fura and Stick?

Ummm, this may be a great idea.

So, right now we're at 8-1; Inq x 3

Sequence of events after that:

N3 7-1; Inq x2
D4 6-2; Inq x2
N4 6-2; Inq x1
D5 5-2; Inq x1
N5 5-1; Inq dead
D6 4-1

Is that math wrong?

If not, that may be our best chance honestly if we truly think Stick and Fura are the prohibitive choices for inquisitor.  Current vote count:

Fura (2) - Sart, CadCom
Sart (0) - Fura
Stick (1) - Fura

Stick for now

Edit: Please multiple people check my math and vote count.

Edited September 10, 2019 by Rathmaskal

[Lumgol]

9 hours ago, Furamirionind said:

@Lumgol if a lurcher successfully targets someone, will they get a differant response if they protected someone from an attack or conversion?

Yes. Well, a Lurcher has to specify whether they're protecting from attack or conversion, so if they're successful, it'll be implied what they were protecting from anyway.

Edited September 10, 2019 by Lumgol

[Devotary of Spontaneity]

Double lynches are difficult to pull off as they're subject to last minute vote swings, but since two candidates are voting for each other it would be easier to accomplish. Drake has said he'd be Soothing a vote off of Fura, which would need to be confirmed.

Fura(2): Sart, CadCom
Stick(2): Fura, Rath

If anyone targeted Aman N1 or Cicada N2, now is the time to speak up. 

D3: 8-1(3 lives) lynch I, mislynch
N3: 7-1(2 lives) kill Sart, no convert
D4: 6-1(2 lives) lynch I
N4: 6-1(1 life) kill shane, no convert
D5: 5-1(1 life) kill Inquisitor, win

or if Shane is the Inquisitor and we double-lynch Stick and Fura

D3: 8-1(3 lives) double mislynch
N3: 6-1(3 lives) kill Sart, no convert
D4: 5-1(3 lives) lynch I
N4: 5-1(2 lives) kill CadCom, no convert
D5: 4-1(2 lives) lynch I
N5: 4-1(1 life) kill, convert
D6: 2-2, lose